Suppress-Script candidates (was: Re: frr, fy, ngo, tt)
dewell at adelphia.net
Wed Sep 27 17:54:10 CEST 2006
John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
>> Lines where LTRU has no script and CLDR has one are not something we
>> need to spend a great amount of time worrying about, unless there is
>> a genuine concern that people are going to start writing, say,
>> "ig-Latn-NG" and it won't match with "ig-NG".
> Unfortunately, it is *precisely* that concern that got
> Suppress-Script: into RFC 4646 in the first place. So that is what we
> must get right. When people are confronted with a "Script" drop-down
> menu, the instinct will be to choose the correct answer rather than
> leaving it on default, so without adequate Suppress-Script:
> information the result will indeed be "ig-Latn-NG".
My point in choosing Igbo was that it is a language spoken by a large
number of people in one country (18 million in Nigeria) and virtually
nowhere else, so it would be unlikely that "ig-NG" would communicate
much more information than "ig" alone.
>> >lang mo ltru Latn cldr Cyrl Latn
>> >lang ms ltru Latn cldr Arab Latn
> Yes, I'd have to say we screwed up on those two. Fortunately,
> Moldovan is only a separate language for political reasons (it's
> really Romanian, as even the Moldovan Academy of Science agrees), and
> "ms-arab" is pretty thoroughly obsolete.
Unfortunately, we can't change them now.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages